Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

If all you believe in, is science, it's pretty sad.


calfoxwc

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Why do you need to believe in a higher power to be touched by this kind of thing? Do you think atheists are all just heartless robots that don't give a crap about feelings in any way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

 

Don't be like woody. I didn't mention God and Christianity at all.

 

I simply was makiing the point, that science isn't the end all-be all.

 

I don't believe the young lady's letter did, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

 

Don't be like woody. I didn't mention God and Christianity at all.

 

I simply was makiing the point, that science isn't the end all-be all.

 

I don't believe the young lady's letter did, either.

Neither did I, that was Steve. Do try to keep up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you'll find that most atheists have the same moral code as most christians.

Never really said they didn't. But like Christianity they are moral rules meant to override nature in most cases. And the atheist get just as nasty what others don't agree with them as Christians do.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cal... When we're talking about scientific subjects, like the origin of the earth, evolution, climate change, etc, that's generally where science is the way to go. Just becaue you disagree with the results, doesn't mean those that agree only believe in science.... Or whatever the hell you're trying to get at here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science can attempt to distill things like love and courage into some chemical response but that's not the real truth of it. You can't just mix up love in a beaker.

Clearly Hollywood disagrees with you!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102343/

 

In all seriousness, I don't feel like having a scientific explanation for any of those things diminishes them in any way. They are way more complex than a chemical response and learning to some extent how it all works is pretty awe-inspiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Where? I've tried looking for it before

Click your name on the top right of the forum website, then click on My Settings. Click on Ignore Preferences. From there you can add the person to ignore and check off the items from you'd like to ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Chris, you posted this:

 

"Why do you need to believe in a higher power to be touched by this kind of thing?"

that means, you are bringing up God, or at least some semblence of Christianity, Buddism, something.

I figure you know that I am a Christain by now, so your mistaken, ignorant reference to me, is

pretty much referring to Christianity. Which is why Steve responded the way he did.

 

2. And, Os, google it. You are blowing smoke up your own ...nose.

 

3. Woodpecker - my point is, that some people, like you, depend on science to be the end all

of all your beliefs and arguments. And your ridicule anything that can't be proven by science.

so, my point stands - and if you have ever ONCE flapped your stupid beaks otherwise, apparently

I missed it. Perhaps you'd like to go back a few years and repost it...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes... On issues regarding science, I generally take the side with scientific evidence. If your side can't be proven by science... Then it's most likely wrong lol.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what point you think you're making... but keep trying cuz this is funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You laugh at anything not proven by science.

 

That's sad, not funny. Did you have interaction with

the outside world when you were growing up, or

you just hid in your closet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol.... This is the guy that went on that "emotion" kick a few months ago. Where every post included "all libs do is go off of emotion!"

 

And now... Haha

 

I'm not sure what point you think you're making, but it isn't working. You are just trying to extrapolate what I said based on you want to be true in an attempt to insult me lol.

 

Is this the first step to you admitting you've been wrong about the scientific "debates" we've had?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Chris, you posted this:

 

"Why do you need to believe in a higher power to be touched by this kind of thing?"

that means, you are bringing up God, or at least some semblence of Christianity, Buddism, something.

I figure you know that I am a Christain by now, so your mistaken, ignorant reference to me, is

pretty much referring to Christianity. Which is why Steve responded the way he did.

 

2. And, Os, google it. You are blowing smoke up your own ...nose.

 

Google what exactly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

woody, you are talking out of your woodypeckerhead ass, as usual.

 

then you claim that you proved your invisible point.

 

Useless. Too many times banging your woodypeckerhead against a dead tree?

 

Or telephone pole. (you wouldn't know the difference).

 

Yes, libs react emotionally to issues. That explains why they cherry pick their science

to make a point.

 

And when that blows up in their face, they simply change the words, ie, "man made global warming" to

....."climate change".

 

It's sad. Really sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahahaha "cherry pick", "blows up in their face" lol. Grasp at straws much?

 

The only thing funnier than you attempting to discredit the role of science on a scientific issue is you claiming that science is on your side.... Hahahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see... the good old "scientific" hockey stick scandal.... that wasn't "peer reviewed" "hahahaha"

 

Tree ring "science" scandal.... "hahahahaha"

 

Destruction of science data.... scandal.... "hahahahahaha"

 

International Socialist Party agenda/Agenda 21/Framework convention/WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION scandal..." HAHAHAHAHA"

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/10/floy-lilley/global-warming-scandals/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Peter Gleick phony memo about mmgw strategy, where he said it was from

the Heartland Instifute...but He wrote it himself. "ahahahahahaha"

 

http://fakegate.org/new-evidence-released-in-fakegate-global-warming-scandal/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.thegwpf.org/consensus-controversy-debate-man-made-global-warming/

 

"The theatrical tropes of the debate is also squarely pinpointed by the fact that the play’s definitive number one villain and enfant terrible is the agent and actor (or rather “actant” in the vocabulary of actor-network-theory) that goes by the name of CO2. Carbon dioxide. This gas is quite literally the “smoking gun” (Archer and Rahmstorf 2010: 11) of the play, metaphorically represented as something like the (Lord of The Rings’) Sauron in the saga of global warming, and believed to play the major role in causing anthropogenic global warming – with all its possible detrimental consequences. Yet CO2 is also a major actant in photosynthesis and the life-giving production of oxygen. With CO2 at the centrepiece of the play, inhabiting this radically doubleedged position of being both the gas of life and death, global warming as eschatological tales of humanity’s end-times, and its embedded counter narrative of secular (or rather quasi-religious) earthly resurrection and salvation through heroic deeds and technological measures, the drama of global warming attains the level of meaning that myths are made of."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...